Bryce Zabel's MOVIE SMACKDOWN!

Away We Go (2009) -vs- Juno (2007)

THE SMACKDOWN. Did you ever have to make up your mind? Both "Away We Go" and "Juno" are about those decisions that come from life that can't be fudged, postponed or ignored. Even though both films involve pregnant leads who aren't married to the fathers of their unborn, there's more here than childbirth.  Each film lets us see a big life question presented in a way that shows there isn't always a "right" answer. Sometimes life forces us to choose. To pick up on one and leave the other behind. Well, we have to choose now, too. Should we go with the the couple of thirtysomethings who have to decide where to make their stand with a new baby; or the teenage girl who has a "go-no go" decision to make about a baby of her own and the boyfriend who's in way over his head?

THE CHALLENGER. "Away We Go" comes from the same director who gave us "American Beauty," Sam Mendes. The common thread in his work between these two films is the sharply drawn characters he finds living in an America he doesn't seem to like all that much. Written by the married couple of Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, it tells the story of Burt and Verona -- who aren't married and are muddling through their lives knowing the clock is ticking, not biologically, but socially. Depending on who you talk to they're either nice or narcissistic, but either way they feel like their peers are getting along better than they are, they know something's wrong and they still haven't quite grasped what to do about it. When Burt's parents (Verona's are deceased) announce that they are moving to Belgium and, thus, won't be around to see their grandchild born, the young couple decides to hit the road, looking for a place that will have the right vibe to start their family (and, hopefully, their new & improved lives). Then it's planes, trains and automobiles as the story bounces from Arizona to Wisconsin to Florida and finally lands in what, for them, is supposed to be the land of Hope. Along the journey, they run into a lot of parenting advice and all kinds of disappointing people.

Public Enemies (2009) -vs- Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

The Smackdown.  Gangsters have occupied a rather over-elevated rung on the movie subject matter ladder since the first hand-cranked silents unspooled for the hungry hordes a century ago. Criminals lead such dramatic lives, so full of danger and tragedy and excitement that we naturally look to them for our movie myths and anti-heroes.  We fantasize and fetishize these quintessential losers so dutifully that they continue to exude glamour and power some seventy-odd years past their reign of terror. Their Depression seemed more romantic, more photo-ready than our own, their poverty and hard times made picturesque by the passage of time. Criminal desperation and anarchic violence gets rendered literary and archetypal. So which film featuring the fall of which ill-fated bankrobber/lover makes the grade? Depp’s dapper Dillinger faces off squarely with Beatty’s Barrow.

The Challenger. "Public Enemies" (2009) ||  Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp in an ambitious fever dream version of the last gasp of 1930’s glamorous gangster life in Chicago. John Dillinger is the film’s centerpiece, released after nine years in prison only to be squeezed uncomfortably and fatally between two larger and far more deadly forces – the burgeoning FBI and organized crime. Dillinger and other infamous crooks meet their famous ends at the hands of Melvin Purvis and his nameless G-men.

Moon (2009) -vs- Solaris (2002)

THE SMACKDOWN.  Spending a weekend in, say, Fresno can challenge your sanity so just imagine what spending three years, alone, on the Dark Side of the Moon could do to scramble your sense of reality. "Moon" is the latest little film that could -- made for $5-million -- about a very big idea. It comes to us direct from commercial director Duncan Jones who, helpfully I'm sure, is David Bowie's son. Dad's "Space Oddity" came out in 1969, the year that Neil Armstrong did the original moonwalk, and the year after "2001: A Space Odyssey" was released and blew the minds of a generation of stoned college students.  Besides being compared to the granddaddy of science-fiction, Jones's sci-fi thriller also references such films as "Silent Running," "Alien," "Outland," and even, in one key element, "Blade Runner." We've thrown our share of space films into the Smackdown ring against Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece," but it seems a fresher and more appropriate opponent for "Moon" is Steve Soderbergh's re-make of "Solaris." Both "Moon" and "Solaris" serve up disorienting helpings of the isolation of space, the sense that things are not what they seem, romance bent by quantum physics and leading men who think that, just maybe, they are losing their minds.

THE CHALLENGER. Although there are a few other characters, "Moon" is pretty much a one-man show starring Sam Rockwell who plays an astronaut finishing a three year contract to mine Helium-3 on the moon to ship to an Earth that's using it to achieve glorious clean energy independence. There is also a robot named Gerty to keep him company, one with the same flat energy of HAL from "2001," voiced this time by Kevin Spacey. The problem is that Rockwell's Sam Bell is nearing the end of a three-year shift and he's pretty much falling apart, physically and mentally. The facility is new enough, complete with videos, ping-pong (against yourself) and other diversions, but the antennae to communicate to back home is broken and all he can do is send "message units" and dream of having a real back-and-forth conversation some day soon. Then he discovers that he's not the only thing that's a little off and the story kicks into another gear that is unexpected, odd and uniquely human.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) -vs- Transformers (2007)

Editor's Note: "Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen" had a five-day opening gross of $201.2 million from 4,234 theaters domestically. This trampled the $152.4 million earned by "Spider-Man 2," which previously held the five-day record for a Wednesday launch.  Plus, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" nearly matched the best five-day gross of all time which was $203.8 million for WB's "The Dark Knight."  But, of course, what really counts is whether or not it won its Smackdown. What say you, Beau?  ~~Bryce Zabel

The Smackdown. Hollywood's in love with the 1980s, and nowhere is it more apparent than with the Transformer's franchise. In 2007, the first "Transformers" was a box-office success, easily earning a sequel in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."  Now, in less then two years, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" hits theaters with the same cast and crew as the original.  Sounds like a fair fight?  So true to the spirit of the Transformer series, today's smackdown pits robot against robot in a knock-down intergalactic cinematic fight as we ask which film does robot-on-robot action better?

The Challenger. With "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," Michael Bay spares no expense ensuring audiences get more bang for their $14 movie ticket. This time, a college-bound Sam Witwicky finds himself trapped in the ever-escalating war between the Autobots and Decepticons...again. See, a prehistoric Transformer called The Fallen intends to drain our sun to obtain the Transformer's life-force, Energon. Naturally, he'll then conquer the cosmos or achieve some equally impolite end (like chewing with his mouth open). But only Sam knows the location of this Energon machine due to a series of psychic visions. Now, Sam must lead the Autobots to Egypt where they wage war against The Fallen, his Decepticons, and Megatron...yes, that's right, Megatron's back too. Still want more plot? Don't worry; I just gave you half. Clocking in well over two hours, "Transformers: RotF" has enough plot for three trilogies. It's the only type of sequel you'd expect from Michael Bay: one that's bigger, louder, and dumber.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) -vs- Crimson Tide (1995)

The Smackdown.  People trapped inside the cold steel of big machines. Check. Ticking clocks relentlessly counting down to disaster. Check. Battles of will between A-list actors. Check again. Director Tony Scott must have known he had a good thing in 1995's "Crimson Tide" and was looking to repeat it with this year's re-make of the classic "The Taking of Pelham 123."  As far as action directors go, Scott (brother of Ridley) is in the very elite. He makes movies that are almost always worth the price of a ticket at the cineplex. The best are tense, scary, hard-edged ones where his screenwriters give him high stakes and the dialogue to support them (often for Denzel Washington) and then he paces the hell out of the film itself. We have a real fight on our hands with some Scott-on-Scott violence.

The Challenger. The 2009 "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" takes its inspiration from the 1974 film "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" which took its inspiration from the same novel written by John Godey. In the hands of current screenwriter Brian Helgeland, the central idea -- bad guys board a New York subway and take the passengers hostage while demanding a huge ransom -- remains the same. He's given us a few new twists, like the lead hijacker, Ryder (John Travolta) is now an ex-con and the negotiator, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is now a transit executive. Then director Scott bends and twists it through pacing, tone and special effects. In this film, Travolta drives the action but it's Washington who gets put on the spot in one particularly tough moment when, without benefit of waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques, the hijacker gets the negotiator to confess to a crime of his own. It's one of those "what would you do" moments and particularly effective as played by Washington.

The Proposal (2009) -vs- Green Card (1990)

The Smackdown. Immigration Law Romantic Comedy makes up a very exclusive subset of the chickflick genre, and there’s a new kid on the block. Great White (North) Hope Sandra Bullock’s “The Proposal” arrives with heavyweight credentials and high expectations for box office punch.  A Canadian über-bitch book editor threatened with deportation strong-arms her assistant into an arranged engagement; complications and frolics ensue. Almost two decades ago, Peter Weir constructed his own little Valentine to New York City and unlikely romance when a Frenchman’s marriage of convenience and “Green Card” is threatened by an official immigration investigation. These immigrants are adorable, and they want to stay forever. Which begs the question: If no American falls in love with an illegal immigrant, does a tree fall in the woods? Or something like that.

The Challenger. In “The Proposal,” dancer turned choreographer turned director Anne “27 Dresses” Fletcher doesn’t miss  a romcom convention trick here; any over-initiated romcom afficianado can count them off as they accumulate like smashed bugs on the roadtrip windshield. The awkward set-up, the unconvincing animosity, the charged first kiss, the forced sharing of sleeping quarters, the omnipresent and insipid old girlfriend, accidentally seeing each other naked, the makeover, the tragically wrong choice of shoes, the requisite dirty old lady, the perverted foreigner, the overly aggressive pet, the rescue, the aborted wedding, the multi-vehicle chase, the proposal/declaration of love before co-workers/family. Check. Check. Check please.

Up (2009) -vs- Wall-E (2008)

The Smackdown.  A year ago on this very site, a small, garbage-collecting robot named "Wall-E" dethroned the king of computer animation, Pixar's beloved "Toy Story." The film found gigantic success, being hailed by critics, winning the Academy Award for best animated feature and receiving a nomination for Best Screenplay. "Wall-E" transformed the genre and pushed the limits of innovation and creativity.  Now, a year after its historical upset, "Wall-E" stands ready to defend its title against the newest of Pixar's animated giants, the high-flying adventure story "Up." Headlining opening night of the Cannes Film Festival, a feat never before accomplished by an animated feature (let alone an American one,) "Up" and its cast of elderly men, children and talking dogs (you heard me) have entered the world of cinema at full steam, their focus fixed solely on taking our favorite robot's crown. Will "Wall-E" have enough strength to put down its first challenger, or will his reign prove a short one? Let's find out!

The Challenger.  "Up" tells the story of Carl Fredricksen, an elderly balloon vendor who once dreamt of adventure with his wife Ellie, but now resigns himself to sitting on his front porch while the world moves on around him. In order to keep a promise he had made to his Ellie a lifetime ago, Carl decides to leave the world behind and relocate their home to the mythical Paradise Falls in Venezuela, the last known origins of Carl and Ellie's childhood hero, adventurer Charles Muntz. His plan - to lift their home out if its foundation by thousands of colorful balloons and sail through the heavens to his Paradise Falls. However, what Carl doesn't plan for is to accidentally take Russell, an energetic young boy scout, with him on his adventure. Nor does he plan to be thrown into the middle of a battle for a mysterious giant bird known as "Kevin," a conflict that has the potential to jeopardize his promise to Ellie.

My Life In Ruins (2009) -vs- The Hangover (2009)

The Smackdown. It’s a battle of the sexes for the ages. The balls-out edgy Men-Will-Be-Boys comedy takes on the watching-paint-dry-by-numbers My Not So Fat Any More Greek Tour Guide. Hardly a fair fight, there’s no intersection in the Venn diagram of viewers who might enjoy both outings.   One’s ostensibly for the ladies -- and by ladies I mean strictly Red Hat Society folks, the ones who talk in the theaters non-stop, moviegoers surprised by plot turns telegraphed so clearly that you wonder how these clueless souls found their way to the theater without assistance. “The Hangover” aims for a demographic blessed with a lowbrow sense of humor and no sense of decorum. It’s Dumb versus Dumber. Chicks versus Dudes. Old versus Young. Grab yourself a Jaegermeister or a giant bottle of Ouzo. You’re gonna need to get a little liquored up to make it through this double feature.

In This Corner. Imagine “Mamma Mia” without ABBA. Nia Vardalos plays a second rate tour guide in Greece surrounded by a bunch of hopelessly corny tourists and stereotypical locals. If touring Greece by bus is something you might consider actually doing at some point in your life, you might enjoy watching “My Life In Ruins.” I’ll just sit over there in the corner, doing just about anything else in the world if you don’t mind. But, as they say, those who like this sort of thing will likely like it. (Send your parents.)

Terminator Salvation (2009) -vs- The Terminator (1984)

The Smackdown. Movies, like much in life, reinforce the notion that more isn't always better, just more. For every "Godfather II," you get "Teen Wolf Too," "Dumb and Dumberer," and "Jaws: The Revenge." With some ideas, better to cut your losses.

That question comes to mind with the new release of "Terminator Salvation." Has the basic idea worn out its welcome? "The Terminator" came out in 1984 and became a world wide hit that propelled director James Cameron into a distinguished career. Arnold Schwarzenegger graduated from curiosity to movie star.

It's now a bankable franchise. The basic idea of mechanized death traveling through time to alter the future carried three feature films and a now-canceled TV series. All rework the storyline to emphasize different aspects of a familiar fable. They succeed to varying degrees and set a high bar for whatever follows.

"Terminator Salvation" faces tall tasks in this Smackdown!: Does it succeed as a film on its own merits, while advancing the memorable elements set forth in "The Terminator?" Will you hear "I'll be back" and wonder why?

Contact (1997) -vs- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

 

The Smackdown. If you're old enough to remember the marketing campaign for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," then you'll remember the goosebumps you got when you heard the phrase, We are not alone.  What was great about that simple sentence was that it promised a movie about aliens that was about wonder and mystery and wasn't about the same old Hollywood treatment of life in the universe, namely that if it bothered to interact with humans it was for a nefarious reason, everything from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to "War of the Worlds" to the later "Independence Day."   Twenty years after "Close Encounters" came another film that promised to make first contact a matter of humanity's growth out of the cradle and not some intergalactic cage match. Both "Close Encounters" and "Contact" were aliens for smart people brought to you first by the immense talent of Steven Spielberg and later by the immense intellect of Carl Sagan.  In my Hollywood career, I've had the good fortune to discuss UFOs and extraterrestrial life with both of these men and found them to have some very different visions of the subject.  They each have used film to express their views about life as it might exist "out there."  The question is, which version comes closest to what might be the truth about first contact, and which one is the better film?

The Challenger. "Contact" (the movie) directed by Robert Zemeckis is a faithful film adaption of Contact (the novel) written by Carl Sagan.  In both tellings, radio astronomer Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) hits the cosmic jackpot when the giant radio telescopes that are part of S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence) actually turn up a non-random signal from across the universe.  Someone is talking to us or, more accurately, talking back.  You see, they've picked up the very first television transmission the Earth ever leaked outward, amped it up and sent it back to us.  It's an excellent surprise and -- without spoiling it -- let's just say that the first TV signal that went out from Earth is, well, unexpected.  After that, the story kicks into where no film has really gone before.  There's another signal buried in that TV re-transmission that is, basically, the blueprints for building a gigantic spacecraft... for one person!  Well, if there was ever a situation designed to stretch our humanity to the breaking point, it would be trying to determine who's going to be that lucky (or, in failure, unlucky) person.  Where will they go?  Will they ever return?  Will they die?  Is it some kind of trick?